novembro 29, 2010

Thoughts on Jesus's Family via Mary and Joseph

Thoughts on Jesus's Family via Mary and Joseph

Based on early church records

  • Clopas (Alphaeus) was spoken of in early church writings as the brother of Joseph, Jesus's father, who along with his wife Mary became the parents of James the Less i.e. Younger or Minor, one of Jesus's disciples, and thus his cousin on his father's side. Other children they had were Joses, and also Simon, the overseer in Jerusalem after 70AD. And while church records are (possibly understandably) silent on the subject, Mark mentions him also as the father of the publican named Levi (with the Greek name of Matthew, writer of the gospel). Clopas's wife Mary was seen at the crucifixion. See Mark 15:40, John 19:25.

  • Salome, thought to be the sister of Jesus's mother, Mary. Married Zebedee, becoming the mother of Jesus's cousins John and James Major i.e. Older, thus differentiating this cousin James from James Minor. Salome and her son John were both present at the crucifixion. Since Joseph, Jesus's father, is thought to have passed away, Jesus asks John, his cousin and, along with James, probably Mary's closest male blood relative, to look after her. See Mark 15:40, Matthew 27:55, John 19:25.

  • Elizabeth, sister of Jesus's grandmother on his mother Mary's side, and descended from the tribe of Aaron. Elizabeth marries Zachariah, also from the tribe of Aaron. In their old age, they have a son, John (the Baptist). With the massacre of the infants by Herod, about 1 BC, she seeks hiding in the desert/mountains with her son, John. Zachariah is then thought to have been murdered in the temple when he refused to surrender the whereabouts of his son. He is thus believed to be the righteous Zachariah, son of Berechiah, referred to by Jesus in Luke 11 and Matthew 23 when Jesus declares the punishment about to come on the Pharisees for all the righteous blood spilt from Abel to Zachariah. John now grows up (under God's protection) in the desert. See http://www.antiochian.org/zacharias_the_prophet

  • James, writer of the New Testament book of James, and thought to have been Jesus's step-brother through his father Joseph. Not a believer before the crucifixion, but then Jesus appeared personally to James after the resurrection. James (also called the Just) was then made overseer in the early church in Jerusalem. As a side note, Joseph, Jesus's father, is believed by many to have been much older than Mary, and a widower from an earlier marriage when James and other step-brothers and step-sisters of Jesus were born. One of those brothers is thought to be the disciple in the gospels referred to as Jude or Judas not Iscariot, writer of the book of Jude, and referred to also as Lebbaeus and Thaddaeus ☺.

And those aunties (with Mary Magdalene and Joanna) there on that world-changing Sunday, the day of the resurrection.

There are four accurate accounts, accurate because this is scripture, but with different perspectives — Matthew, who would have heard the ladies account on the Sunday before seeing Jesus Sunday evening, Mark and Luke who heard about it later, and John who raced to the tomb at Mary's words, but again saw nothing before the evening.

So reconciling the four accounts:

Aunt Salome, the one blood relative via Jesus's mother, wife of Zebedee and mother of James and John, comes with Aunt Mary, Joseph's sister-in-law, also with Mary Magdalene and Joanna (probably the one who was the wife of Herod's steward Chuza), they all come along with other ladies to anoint the body early on the Sunday.
They see the empty tomb. Mary freaks out, shoots off to tell the disciples. John and Peter come running, though John runs the faster ☺, but they go inside, see nothing and leave.
Then, looking inside, two angels suddenly appear to the ladies who were still there. One tells them the good news, tells them to go and let the disciples know. And Mary, sobbing her eyes out, encounters Jesus, who encourages her not to cling to him at this time ☺ but yes, to go and let the disciples know. He then appears to those ladies who were going to see the disciples, and they worship at his feet. But from Mark's account, there is still great fear, they are freaked out, needless to say, still at least some, if not all, go to let the disciples know. Peter ran back to the tomb, goes inside, but again sees nothing and leaves, wondering at it all.
Jesus then encounters the two men on the way to Emmaus, and sees Peter, and then all the disciples (except Thomas) that evening. Thomas then sees Jesus the following Sunday, worshipping him. Lastly, we have the fishing breakfast, Jesus spending time with Peter. Paul recounts that he is also seen by about 500 people at one point, by his step-brother James, by all the apostles, and lastly by Paul ☺.

Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, John 20, 1 Corinthians 15

The Genealogy of Jesus from Matthew Chapter One

Note: The cross-reference links (i.e. a or b) on this page will open the verses in a small pop-up window in the center of your screen. If your browser blocks these pop-up windows or the link does not open in a new window, please add this site to your "Allowed Sites" list. Click here for instructions on how to allow pop-up windows for this website.

1 The book of the ageneration of 1Jesus 2bChrist, the 3cson of David, 4dson of Abraham:

2 Abraham begot 1aIsaac, and Isaac begot 2bJacob, and Jacob begot 3cJudah and his 4dbrothers,

3 And Judah begot 1aPharez and Zarah of 2Tamar, and Pharez begot bHezron, and Hezron begot Aram,

4 And Aram begot Aminadab, and Aminadab begot Nahshon, and Nahshon begot Salmon,

5 And Salmon begot Boaz of 1aRahab, and 2bBoaz begot Obed of 3cRuth, and Obed begot 4dJesse,

6 And Jesse begot 1aDavid the 2bking. And David begot 3cSolomon of her who had been the 4dwife of Uriah,

7 And Solomon begot 1aRehoboam, and Rehoboam begot Abijah, and Abijah begot Asa,

8 And Asa begot Jehoshaphat, and Jehoshaphat begot 1Joram, and Joram begot Uzziah,

9 And Uzziah begot Jotham, and Jotham begot Ahaz, and Ahaz begot Hezekiah,

10 And Hezekiah begot Manasseh, and Manasseh begot Amon, and Amon begot Josiah.

11 And 1Josiah begot 2aJeconiah and his 3brothers at the time of the 4bdeportation to Babylon.

12 And after the 1deportation to Babylon, Jeconiah begot aSalathiel, and Salathiel begot 2bZerubbabel,

13 And Zerubbabel begot Abiud, and Abiud begot Eliakim, and Eliakim begot Azor,

14 And Azor begot Zadok, and Zadok begot Achim, and Achim begot Eliud,

15 And Eliud begot Eleazar, and Eleazar begot Matthan, and Matthan begot Jacob,

16 And 1Jacob begot 2aJoseph the husband of 3bMary, of whom was cborn dJesus, who is called 4eChrist.

17 Thus 1all the generations from Abraham 2until David are fourteen generations, and from David 3until the deportation to Babylon, fourteen generations, and from the deportation to Babylon 4until the Christ, fourteen generations.

18 Now the aorigin of Jesus Christ was in this way: His mother, bMary, after she had been engaged to Joseph, before they came together, was found to be with child 1of the cHoly Spirit.

19 And Joseph her husband, being 1arighteous and not willing to bdisgrace her openly, intended to 2send her away secretly.

20 But while he pondered these things, behold, an aangel of the Lord appeared to him in a bdream, saying, Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary your wife, for that which has been 1begotten in her is 2of the cHoly Spirit.

21 And she will bear a ason, and you shall call His name 1bJesus, for it is He who will csave His people from their sins.

22 Now all this has happened so that what was spoken by the Lord through the 1prophet might be afulfilled, saying,

23 "Behold, the avirgin shall be with child and shall bear a 1son, and they shall call His name 2bEmmanuel" (which is translated, cGod 3with us).

24 And when Joseph awoke from his sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to himself his wife.

25 And he did not know her until she 1bore a son. And he called His name aJesus.


11 The first name and the last name (Rev. 22:21) in the New Testament is Jesus, proving that Jesus Christ is the subject and content of the New Testament.

The Bible is a book of life, and this life is a living person, the wonderful and all-inclusive Christ. The Old Testament gives a portrait, in types and prophecies, of this wonderful person as the Coming One. Now, in the New Testament, this wonderful person has come. The first page of the New Testament, in recommending this wonderful person to us, gives us His genealogy. This genealogy can be considered an abstract of the Old Testament, which in itself is the detailed genealogy of Christ. To understand the genealogy in Matthew, we need to trace the origin and history of every incident.

Christ, as the wonderful center of the entire Bible, is all-inclusive, having many aspects. The New Testament at its beginning presents four biographies to portray the four main aspects of this all-inclusive Christ. The Gospel of Matthew testifies that He is the King, the Christ of God prophesied in the Old Testament, who brings the kingdom of the heavens to the earth. The Gospel of Mark tells us that He is the Servant of God, laboring for God faithfully. Mark's account is most simple, for a servant does not warrant a detailed record. The Gospel of Luke presents a full picture of Him as the only proper and normal man who ever lived on this earth; as such a man, He is the Savior of mankind. The Gospel of John unveils Him as the Son of God, the very God Himself, who is life to God's people. Among the four Gospels, Matthew and Luke have a record of genealogy; Mark and John do not. To testify that Jesus is the King, the Christ of God prophesied in the Old Testament, Matthew needs to show us the antecedents and status of this King, to prove that He is the proper successor to the throne of David. To prove that Jesus is a proper and normal man, Luke needs to show the generations of this man, to attest that He is qualified to be the Savior of mankind. For the record of a servant, Mark does not need to tell us His origin. To unveil that Jesus is the very God, neither does John need to give us His human genealogy; rather, he declares that, as the Word of God, He is the very God in the beginning.

The kingdom, of which Christ is the King, is composed of Abraham's descendants, including both his descendants in the flesh and those in faith. Hence, the genealogy of Christ in Matthew begins with Abraham, the father of the called race, not with Adam, the father of the created race. God's kingdom is not built with the created race of Adam but with the called race of Abraham, which includes both the real Israelites (Rom. 9:6-8) and the believers in Christ (Gal. 3:7, 9, 29). To prove by relating His genealogy that Jesus is a proper man qualified to be the Savior of mankind, Luke traces His genealogy back to Adam, the first generation of mankind. (back to v. 1)

12 In the genealogy of Jesus given by Luke, which proves that He is a proper man, the title Christ is not mentioned (Luke 3:23-38). But in the genealogy of Christ given here by Matthew, which proves that He is the King, the Christ of God, the title Christ is emphasized repeatedly (vv. 1, 16-17). (back to v. 1)

13 Solomon is a type of Christ as the son of David, the One who inherits the throne and kingdom of David (2 Sam. 7:12-13; Luke 1:32-33). Solomon, as a type of Christ, did mainly two things: he built the temple of God in the kingdom (1 Kings 6:2) and spoke the word of wisdom (1 Kings 10:23-24; Matt. 12:42). Christ, in fulfilling this type, is now building the real temple of God, the church, in the kingdom of God and has spoken the word of wisdom. (back to v. 1)

14 Isaac is a type of Christ as the son of Abraham, the One who inherits the promise and blessing God gave to Abraham (Gen. 22:17-18; Gal. 3:16, 14). Isaac also, as a type of Christ, did mainly two things: he obeyed his father even unto death and was resurrected from death (Gen. 22:9-10; Heb. 11:19), and he took Rebekah, a Gentile woman, as his wife (Gen. 24:61-67). Christ, in fulfilling this type, was put to death and offered to God and was resurrected from death, and He is taking the church as His bride out of the Gentiles. (back to v. 1)

21 Abraham begot eight sons (Gen. 16:15; 21:2-3; 25:2). Among those eight, only Isaac is counted as the promised seed (Rom. 9:7-8). Hence, Christ is his descendant to fulfill God's promise given to Abraham and to him (Gen. 22:18; 26:4). (back to v. 2)

22 Isaac begot twin sons, Esau and Jacob (Gen. 25:21-26), but only Jacob was chosen by God (Rom. 9:10-13). Hence, Christ is his descendant to fulfill God's promise given to Abraham, to Isaac, and to him (Gen. 22:18; 26:4; 28:14). (back to v. 2)

23 The birthright of the promised seed consists of the double portion of the land, the priesthood, and the kingship. Reuben, as the firstborn son of Jacob, should have inherited the birthright. But because of his defilement he lost the birthright (Gen. 49:3-4; 1 Chron. 5:1-2). The double portion of the land went to Joseph through his two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim (Josh. 16—17); the priesthood went to Levi (Deut. 33:8-10); and the kingship was given to Judah (Gen. 49:10; 1 Chron. 5:2). Hence, Christ, the King of God's kingdom, is a descendant of Judah (Heb. 7:14); as such, He inherits the kingdom.
(back to v. 2)

24 Neither the brothers of Isaac nor the brother of Jacob, but only the brothers of Judah, are mentioned in this genealogy, because only Judah's brothers were chosen by God. (back to v. 2)

31 Pharez and Zarah were twins. At the time of delivery Zarah put out his hand, and the midwife marked it with a scarlet thread, indicating that he would be the firstborn. However, Pharez preceded him to be the firstborn (Gen. 38:27-30). Pharez was not chosen by man but was sent by God, proving that it was not by man's choice but by God's. (back to v. 3)

32 In the genealogy of Adam no woman is recorded (Gen. 5:1-32), but in this genealogy of Christ five women are mentioned. Only one of these five was a chaste virgin—Mary, a descendant of the chosen race. Of her, Christ was directly born (v. 16). Among the rest—Tamar, Rahab, Ruth (v. 5), and Bathsheba, who had been the wife of Uriah (v. 6)—some were Gentiles, some were remarried, and three were even sinful—Tamar committed incest, Rahab was a prostitute, and Bathsheba committed adultery. This indicates that Christ is related not only to the Jews but also to the Gentiles, even to the sinful people, and is the kingly Savior of typical sinners. Tamar was Judah's daughter-in-law. Judah begot Pharez and Zarah of her by incest (Gen. 38:6-30). What an evil! (back to v. 3)

51 Rahab was a prostitute in Jericho (Josh. 2:1), a place cursed by God for eternity (Josh. 6:26). After she turned to God and God's people (Josh. 6:22-23, 25; Heb. 11:31) and married Salmon, a leader of Judah, the leading tribe (1 Chron. 2:10-11), she brought forth Boaz, a godly man, out of whom Christ came. Regardless of our background, if we turn to God and His people and are joined to the proper person among God's people, we will bring forth proper fruit and participate in the enjoyment of the birthright of Christ. (back to v. 5)

52 Boaz redeemed his kinsman's inheritance and married the man's widow (Ruth 4:1-17). By so doing he became a notable forefather of Christ, a great associate of Christ. (back to v. 5)

53 The origin of Ruth was incest, for she belonged to the tribe of Moab (Ruth 1:4), the fruit of Lot's incestuous union with his daughter (Gen. 19:30-38). Deuteronomy 23:3 forbade the Moabites to enter the assembly of Jehovah, even to the tenth generation. Ruth, however, not only was accepted by the Lord but also became one of the most important ancestors of Christ because she sought God and God's people (Ruth 1:15-17; 2:11-12). Regardless of who we are and what our background is, as long as we have a heart that seeks God and His people, we are in a position to be accepted into the birthright of Christ.

Boaz's mother, Rahab, was a Canaanitess and a prostitute, and his wife, Ruth, was a Moabitess of incestuous origin and a widow. Both were Gentiles and of low class, yet they are associated with Christ. Christ is joined not only to the Jews but also to the Gentiles, even to those of low estate. (back to v. 5)

54 Isaiah 11:1 prophesied that Christ would be "a twig (lit.) out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch...out of his roots." Christ came out of Jesse. However, Isa. 11:10 says that Christ is the root of Jesse, indicating that Jesse came out of Christ. Jesse was one who brought forth Christ, one who branched out Christ by being rooted in Christ. (back to v. 5)

61 David was the eighth son of his father and was chosen and anointed by God (1 Sam. 16:10-13). The number eight signifies resurrection. That David as the eighth son was chosen by God indicates that his association with Christ was in resurrection. Furthermore, he was a man after the heart of God (1 Sam. 13:14) and brought in God's kingdom for Christ.

David was the last of the generations of the fathers. He was also the first of the generations of the kings. He was the conclusion of one age and the beginning of the next. He became the landmark of two ages because he brought in the kingdom of God and was closely associated with Christ. (back to v. 6)

62 In this genealogy, only David is called "the king" because it was through him that the kingdom with the kingship was brought in. (back to v. 6)

63 When David committed murder and adultery, he was rebuked by the prophet Nathan, whom God had sent purposely to condemn him (2 Sam. 12:1-12). When David was condemned, he repented. Psalm 51 is the record of his repentance. He repented and God forgave him (2 Sam. 12:13). Then he begot Solomon (2 Sam. 12:24). Hence, Solomon is the issue of man's transgression and repentance plus God's forgiveness.

The genealogy in Matthew says that David begot Solomon, but the genealogy in Luke says that Nathan was the son of David (Luke 3:31). First Chronicles 3:5 tells us that Nathan and Solomon were two different persons. Luke's record is the genealogy of David's son Nathan, who was Mary's forefather, whereas Matthew's record is the genealogy of David's son Solomon, who was Joseph's forefather. One genealogy is the line of Mary, the line of the wife; the other is the line of Joseph, the line of the husband. Both Mary and Joseph were descendants of David. Under God's sovereignty they were joined together by marriage, so that through Mary, Joseph was indirectly associated with Christ. Christ can be counted as a descendant of David through either Solomon or Nathan. Hence, He has two genealogies.

Strictly, Solomon was not a direct forefather of Christ. His relationship with Christ was indirect, through the marriage of Joseph, his descendant, to Mary, of whom Christ was born (v. 16). The Old Testament did not say that Christ would be Solomon's descendant, but it prophesied repeatedly that Christ would be a descendant of David (2 Sam. 7:13-14; Jer. 23:5). Although Christ was not a direct descendant of Solomon, the Old Testament prophecies concerning Christ as a descendant of David were nevertheless fulfilled. (back to v. 6)

64 Uriah was a Hittite, a heathen, and his wife was Bathsheba (2 Sam. 11:3). David murdered him and took Bathsheba. Hence, she was remarried as a result of murder and adultery (2 Sam. 11:26-27). David, a man after the heart of God, did right in the eyes of the Lord all the days of his life, except for this one evil (1 Kings 15:5). This genealogy does not say "of Bathsheba" but "of her who had been the wife of Uriah," to emphasize this great sin of David's, thus showing that Christ as the kingly Savior is related not only to the heathen but also to sinners. (back to v. 6)

71 Beginning with Rehoboam, the kingdom of David was divided (1 Kings 11:9-12; 12:1-17). Of the twelve tribes, one was kept for David's sake (1 Kings 11:13), that is, for Christ. Christ needed the kingdom that belonged to the house of David, because He had to be born as an heir to David's throne.

After being divided, the kingdom of David was in two parts. The northern part was called the kingdom of Israel (a universal name) and was composed of ten tribes of Israel; the southern part was called the kingdom of Judah (a local name) and was composed of two tribes, Judah and Benjamin. Although the kingdom of Israel was more universal than that of Judah, not one of the names of the kings of Israel was included in the genealogy of Christ. The kings of Israel were excluded because they were not associated with Christ. They were for something other than Christ. (back to v. 7)

81 The genealogy here records that "Joram begot Uzziah." However, 1 Chron. 3:11-12 says, "Joram his son, Ahaziah his son, Joash his son, Amaziah his son, Azariah" (who is Uzziah—2 Kings 15:1, 13). Three generations—Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah—were omitted. This must have been because of the evil marriage of Joram and the daughter of Ahab and Jezebel, which corrupted Joram's descendants (2 Chron. 21:5-6; 22:1-4). In accordance with Exo. 20:5, three generations of Joram's descendants were cut off from the genealogy of Christ. (back to v. 8)

111 The genealogy here records that "Josiah begot Jeconiah." However, 1 Chron. 3:15-16 says, "The sons of Josiah...the second Jehoiakim...and the sons of Jehoiakim: Jeconiah his son." One generation—Jehoiakim—was omitted from the genealogy of Christ. This must have been because he was made king by Pharaoh of Egypt and collected taxes for Pharaoh (2 Kings 23:34-35). (back to v. 11)

112 Jeconiah was not reckoned a king in the genealogy, because he was born during the captivity and was a captive (2 Chron. 36:9-10—Jehoiachin is Jeconiah). According to the prophecy in Jer. 22:28-30, none of Jeconiah's descendants would inherit the throne of David. If Christ had been a direct descendant of Jeconiah, He would not have been entitled to the throne of David. Although Jer. 22:28-30 says that all the descendants of Jeconiah are excluded from the throne of David, Jer. 23:5 says that God would raise up a Shoot to David, a King who would reign and prosper. This Shoot is Christ. This prophecy confirms that Christ would be the descendant of David, although not a direct descendant of Jeconiah, and would inherit the throne of David. (back to v. 11)

113 In this genealogy there is no mention of the brothers of any kings. However, here the brothers of Jeconiah are mentioned, proving that Jeconiah was not reckoned a king in this genealogy of Christ. (back to v. 11)

114 Referring to the carrying away of the children of Israel into captivity in Babylon. So in v. 17. (back to v. 11)

121 Even those who were carried away as captives to Babylon were included in this sacred record of Christ's genealogy because they had an indirect relationship with Christ through Mary, the wife of one of their descendants and the mother of Jesus. (back to v. 12)

122 "Jeconiah begot Salathiel, and Salathiel begot Zerubbabel." Compare this record with 1 Chron. 3:17-19, which says, "The sons of Jeconiah... Salathiel...and Pedaiah...and the sons of Pedaiah were, Zerubbabel," showing that Zerubbabel was the son of Pedaiah, Salathiel's brother. Zerubbabel was not Salathiel's son but was his nephew, and he became his heir. Perhaps this was a case in accordance with Deut. 25:5-6. Even that word in Deuteronomy is related to the genealogy of Christ.

Zerubbabel was one of the leaders who returned to Jerusalem from the captivity in Babylon (Ezra 5:1-2). He was also a leader in the rebuilding of God's temple (Zech. 4:7-10). The Old Testament predicted that Christ, as a descendant of David, would be born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2; Matt. 2:4-6). Without the return from captivity, it would not have been possible for Christ to be born in Bethlehem. God's command that the captives return was not only for the rebuilding of the temple of God but also to prepare for Christ to be born in Bethlehem. Christ needed some people to be in the proper place to bring Him to earth the first time. Similarly, for His second coming Christ needs some of His people to return from their captivity to the proper church life. (back to v. 12)

161 Here the genealogy says that "Jacob begot Joseph," but Luke 3:23 says, "Joseph, the son of Heli." Luke's record was "according to law" (a literal translation of "so it was thought" in Luke 3:23), indicating that Joseph was not actually the son of Heli but was reckoned his son according to the law. Joseph was the son-in-law of Heli, Mary's father. This may be a case according to Num. 27:1-8 and 36:1-12, in which a regulation was made by God that if any parents had only daughters as heirs, the inheritance would go to the daughters, who would then have to marry a man of their own tribe in order to keep their inheritance within that tribe. Even such a regulation in the Old Testament is related to the genealogy of Christ, showing that all Scripture is a record of Christ. (back to v. 16)

162 At this point the record of this genealogy does not say, "Joseph begot Jesus," which is similar to what is said of all the foregoing persons; it says, "Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus." Jesus was born of Mary, and not of Joseph, since it was prophesied that Christ would be the seed of the woman and would be born of a virgin (Gen. 3:15; Isa. 7:14). Christ could not have been born of Joseph because Joseph was a man and a descendant of Jeconiah, none of whose descendants could inherit the throne of David (Jer. 22:28-30). However, Mary was a virgin and a descendant of David (Luke 1:27, 31-32); as such, she was the right person of whom Christ should be born. The marriage of Joseph and Mary brought Joseph into relationship with Christ and united into one the two lines of Christ's genealogy for the bringing in of Christ, as shown in the chart on the following page.

This chart shows that the generation of Jesus Christ begins from God and continues until it reaches Jesus. It proceeds from God to Adam, from Adam to Abraham, from Abraham through Isaac and Jacob, and on to David. After David it divides into two lines, the first running from Nathan to Mary and the second from Solomon to Joseph. Eventually, these two lines are brought together by the marriage of Mary and Joseph, to bring in Jesus Christ. In this way Christ was apparently a descendant of Jeconiah, who seemed to be in the line of the royal family; actually, He was not a descendant of Jeconiah, Joseph's forefather, but a descendant of David, Mary's forefather, so that He could qualify to inherit the throne of David. (back to v. 16)

163 This genealogy first mentions four women who were either remarried or sinful. In addition, here it mentions a chaste virgin. This indicates that all the persons named in this genealogy were born in sin, except Christ, who was born in holiness.

Abraham, David, and Mary were the three persons crucial to the bringing in of Christ. Abraham represents a life by faith; David, a life under the dealing of the cross; and Mary, a life of absolute surrender to the Lord. It was through these three kinds of lives that Christ was brought forth into humanity. (back to v. 16)

164 Christ is emphasized here to prove that Jesus is the very Messiah (Christ) prophesied in the Old Testament. (back to v. 16)

171 This genealogy is divided into three ages: (1) from Abraham until David, fourteen generations, the age before the establishing of the kingdom; (2) from David until the deportation to Babylon, fourteen generations, the age of the kingdom; (3) from the deportation to Babylon until the Christ, again fourteen generations, the age after the fall of the kingdom. According to history, there were actually forty-five generations. By deducting from these generations the three cursed generations and the one improper generation, and then adding one by making David two generations (one, the age before the establishing of the kingdom, and the other, the age of the kingdom), the generations total forty-two, being divided into three ages of fourteen generations each. The number fourteen is composed of ten plus four. Four signifies creatures (Rev. 4:6); ten signifies fullness (25:1). Hence, fourteen signifies the creatures in full. Fourteen generations being multiplied by three indicates that the Triune God mingles Himself with the creatures in full.

This genealogy is of three sections: the section of the fathers, the section of the kings, and the section of the civilians, which includes the captured ones and the recovered ones. God the Father corresponds with the section of the fathers, God the Son with the section of the kings, and God the Spirit with the section of the civilians. This too indicates the mingling of the Triune God with His human creatures.

Three times fourteen is forty-two. Forty is the number for trials, temptations, and sufferings (Heb. 3:9; Matt. 4:2; 1 Kings 19:8). Forty-two signifies rest and satisfaction after trial. The children of Israel traveled through forty-two stations before they entered the good land of rest. The millennial kingdom as a rest will come after the forty-two months of the great tribulation (Rev. 13:5). After all the generations of trials, temptations, and sufferings, Christ came as the forty-second generation to be our rest and satisfaction. (back to v. 17)

172 David is the end of the generations of the fathers and the beginning of the generations of the kings. He was the one person used by God as a landmark to conclude the section of the fathers and to begin the section of the kings. (back to v. 17)

173 At the time of degradation no person was there as a landmark to demarcate the generations as did Abraham and David. Thus, the deportation became a landmark, a landmark of shame. (back to v. 17)

174 Luke's record begins with Jesus and traces back to God. Matthew's record proceeds from Abraham to Christ. Luke goes back and up to God; Matthew comes forward and down to Christ. All the generations were directed to Christ and brought in Christ. Christ is the goal, the consummation, the conclusion, the completion, and the perfection of all the generations; as such, He fulfills their prophecies, solves their problems, and meets their needs. When Christ comes, light, life, salvation, satisfaction, healing, freedom, rest, comfort, peace, and joy all come with Him. From this point on, the whole New Testament is a full expounding of this wonderful Christ, who is everything to us. Hallelujah, Christ has come! (back to v. 17)

181 Lit., out of. Although Christ was born of Mary (v. 16), He was a child of the Holy Spirit. The birth of Christ was directly of the Holy Spirit (v. 20). His source was the Holy Spirit and His element was divine. Through the virgin Mary He put on flesh and blood, the human nature, taking the likeness of the flesh (Rom. 8:3), the likeness of men (Phil. 2:7). (back to v. 18)

191 A righteous man at that time was one walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord (Luke 1:6), i. e. , one who was living according to the law of God with the propitiation made by the offerings. (back to v. 19)

192 Lit., release her. (back to v. 19)

201 God was first born into Mary through His Spirit; after the conception was completed, He, with the human nature, was born to be a God-man, possessing both divinity and humanity. This is the origin of Christ. (back to v. 20)

202 Lit., out of. (back to v. 20)

211 Jesus is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew name Joshua (Num. 13:16), which means Jehovah the Savior, or the salvation of Jehovah. Hence, Jesus is not only a man but Jehovah, and not only Jehovah but Jehovah becoming our salvation. Thus, He is our Savior. He is also our Joshua, the One who brings us into rest (Heb. 4:8; Matt. 11:28-29), which is Himself as the good land to us. (back to v. 21)

221 One who is commonly considered a foreteller. But in the Scriptures a prophet is one who speaks for God, speaks forth God, and predicts. (back to v. 22)

231 This son of the virgin is the seed of the woman prophesied in Gen. 3:15. (back to v. 23)

232 Jesus was the name given by God, whereas Emmanuel, meaning God with us, was the name by which man called Him. Jesus the Savior is God with us. He is God, and He is also God incarnated to dwell among us (John 1:14). He is not only God but God with us. (back to v. 23)

233 Christ as the very Emmanuel not only was with us when He was on earth, but also is with us, since His ascension, whenever we are gathered into His name (18:20). Moreover, He will be with us all the days until the consummation of the age (28:20). (back to v. 23)

251 The birth of Christ was prepared and accomplished by God's sovereignty. By His sovereignty God brought back to Judea from the captivity in Babylon the ancestors of both Joseph and Mary under the leadership of their forefather Zerubbabel (v. 12; Ezra 5:1-2). Again by His sovereignty God placed both Joseph and Mary in the same city, Nazareth (Luke 1:26; 2:4). Even more, by His sovereignty God brought Joseph and Mary together in marriage so that Christ could be brought in as the legal heir to the throne of David. (back to v. 25)

Genealogy of Jesus, The

Courses

The information in this section originally appeared in an article by the professor (R.P. Nettelhorst) published in the June 1988 issue of the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society.

An old problem for expositors has been the contradictory genealogies of Christ given in Matthew and Luke. Matthew traces Jesus' lineage through forty-two generations from Abraham to Christ. Luke traces it from Adam to Christ, for more than seventy generations.
It is unnecessary to examine in detail the genealogy between Adam and Abraham in Luke. That genealogy appears to derive from the Old Testament (1 Chr 1:1-4, 24-27; Gen 5:3-32;11:10-26). Matthew gives no listing from Adam to Abraham, so no problems there. Both Matthew and Luke list the people from Abraham to David, but again there is no problem: the two genealogies are nearly identical at that point. No, the problem that has confounded readers of the New Testament is found in the listing of names between David and Joseph. Matthew traces Joseph's line through Solomon and the successive kings of Judah. But Luke gives a completely different account, tracing Joseph's line through Nathan, Solomon's brother:

The Genealogies

Matthew
Luke
David David
Solomon Nathan
Rehoboam Mattatha
Abijah Menna
Asa Melea
Jehoshaphat Eliakim
Joram Jonam
Uzziah Joseph
Jotham Judah
Ahaz Simeon
Hezekiah Levi
Manasseh Matthat
Amon Jorim
Josiah Eliezer
Jeconiah Joshua
Shealtiel Er
Zerubbabel Elmadam
Abiud Cosam
Eliakim Addi
Azor Melki
Zadok Neri
Akim Shealtiel
Eliud Zerubbabel
Eleazar Rhesa
Matthan Joanan
Jacob Joda
Joseph Josech
Jesus Semein

Mattathias

Maath

Naggai

Esli

Nahum

Amos

Mattathias

Joseph

Jannai

Melki

Levi

Matthat

Heli

Joseph

Jesus

Clearly there is a difference between these two genealogies. They both start with David and they both end with Jesus, but the names in between are completely different. There aren't even the same number of names in the two lists. Matthew Henry, at the beginning of the eighteenth century, wrote:

The difference between the two evangelists in the genealogy of Christ, has been a stumbling block to infidels that cavil at the word...[Matthew Henry, An Exposition of the Old and New Testaments. Vol. V. Philadelphia: Towar & Hogan, 1828, p. 482]

Skeptics have looked at these differences and have arrived at a simple solution to the problem: the genealogies are, in essence, pious fiction. They are not really genealogies of Christ, but have been composed, perhaps from other sources, so as to try to legitimize Jesus' claim to Messiahship. [Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke I-IX. Anchor Bible. Garden City: Doubleday, 1981, pp. 499-500; Michael Arnheim, Is Christianity True? Buffalo:Prometheus, 1984, pp. 13-16] This explanation has been generally accepted outside of evangelical circles, but as an explanation, it does not satisfy those with a high view of scriptural integrity. However, if the two lists are not mere invention, then how else can they be reconciled? They don't even agree on Joseph's father, a fact which should not have been much of a mystery.
Since first proposed by Annius of Viterbo (c. AD 1490) [I. Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke (The New International Greek Testament Commentary). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978, p. 158], the most common explanation for the discrepancy, at least among evangelicals, has been to assume that Matthew's genealogy traces the lineage of Jesus through Joseph, while the one in Luke actually traces it through Mary. (An appendix in Robertson's Harmony of the Gospels lists eleven scholars, including Martin Luther, who accepted this explanation. [A.T. Robertson, A Harmony of the Gospels. New York: Harper and Row, 1950, pp. 261-262]) At first thought, this seems an admirable explanation. (Of more modern proponents of the theory note: Robert Gundry, A Survey of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1970, pp. 118-119; John MacArthur, Jr. Matthew 1-7. The MacArthur New Testament Commentary. Chicago: Moody Press, 1985, p. 3; Gleason L. Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982, p. 316) After all, everyone has two parents and, therefore, two genealogies. Jesus would be no different. (see also Charles Ryrie, Ryrie Study Bible. note on Luke 3:23 and Matt 1:1; C.I. Scofield, New Scofield Reference Bible, note on Luke 3:23; cf. note on Matt 1:1.) However, this explanation is nothing but wishful thinking, as any reading of the texts involved can demonstrate:

Matthew 1:15b-16a:

Matthan the father of Jacob, and Jacob the father of Joseph...

Luke 3:23b:

He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli, the son of Matthat...

The attempted explanation by proponents of the view -- if they attempt to explain it -- is that Luke 3:23b should be understood as "he was the son--so it was thought of Joseph--the son of Heli, the son of Matthat..." Heli is then Christ's grandfather, and Mary is simply unmentioned. The Greek is nearly stretched beyond what is possible; the reading is very unnatural and forced. (Notice the rather quick dismissal of the position by J. Gresham Machen. The Virgin Birth of Christ. New York: Harper and Row, 1930. pp. 203-204; see also I. Howard Marshall, 158)
It is clear from the text that both genealogies claim to be genealogies of Christ through Joseph. So, back to square one.
According to I. Howard Marshall (Marshall, 158; see also A.T. Robertson, 261.) Julius Africanus, as cited in Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 1.7, 2-15, utilized the custom of levirate marriage as described in Deut 25:5-6 (see also Gen 38:8-10 and Ruth) to explain the apparent discrepancy in the genealogies. (See also Joseph A. Fitzmyer, 499-500. A.T. Robertson lists nine proponents of this view.) The proponents of this explanation argue that Matthan in Matt 1:15 (Joseph's grandfather) and Matthat in Luke 3:24 (his grandfather there, too) are one and the same man. It is then further supposed that Jacob, Joseph's "father" in Matthew died without children, and that his nephew, the son of Heli (Joseph's father in Luke) became his heir. Right.
A view akin to the above is that of Lord A. Hervey, which Marshall argues "has gained [the] most support in modern times" (Marshall, 158). Machen argues quite forcefully for Hervey's idea (Machen, 202-209,229-232; see also F.F. Bruce in The New Bible Dictionary, 458-459). Hervey argued that Matthew gives the legal line of descent from David, giving the legal heir of the throne in each case. Luke, on the other hand, gives David's actual, physical descendants. Marshall writes that this "solution depends upon conjecture, and there is no way of knowing whether the conjectures correspond to reality." (Marshall, 159) It should also be noted that the position is rather complicated, and requires an odd understanding of "begot".
I believe that such complicated methods of figuring out the relationship between the two genealogies are unnecessary. An extremely simple explanation is readily available, and it involves no strange customs or textual twists at all. Both genealogies are clearly through Joseph. I believe that one traces the lineage back through Joseph's father, and that the other traces back through Joseph's mother. However, the maternal genealogy drops the name of Joseph's mother, and instead skips back to her father. Which is which? I believe that the genealogy in Luke is through Joseph's father. I believe the one in Matthew is through Joseph's maternal grandfather.

Matthew's Genealogy Luke's Genealogy
JACOB (maternal grandfather) MATTHAT (paternal grandfather)
(mother--unlisted) HELI (father)

JOSEPH Mary


JESUS

That Matthew should skip Joseph's mother in the genealogical listing is not peculiar since it is readily apparent that Matthew skips a number of people in his genealogy. For instance, in Matt 1:8 he writes: "Joram the father of Uzziah". But when his statement is compared with 1 Chr 3:10-12, the reader sees that three people have been left out of Matthew's genealogy: Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah. Why did Matthew leave names out? So he could get the structural symmetry he desired. In Matt 1:17 he records:

Thus there were fourteen generations
in all from Abraham to David,
fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon,
and fourteen from the exile to Christ.

Therefore, it would not be unreasonable to suppose that Matthew might leave out the name of Joseph's mother so he could get the structural format he desired. Furthermore, this genealogy does list four women: Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Bathsheba, which lends, I think, some support to the idea that this might be a woman's genealogy.
I believe this explanation for the two genealogies has the advantage of simplicity, and that this explanation also has the textual support which the other common theories lack.



Genenalogy of Jesus:

Genenalogy of Jesus: The Problem of the Curse on Jeconiah in Relation to the Genealogy of Jesus

January 1, 2005

The problem can be laid out in this way:

According to the genealogy in Matthew 1:12, Jesus is a descendant of Jeconiah. But Jeconiah was cursed in Jeremiah 22:24 and 22:30:

"As surely as I live," declares the LORD, "even if you, Jehoiachin son of Jehoiakim king of Judah, were a signet ring on my right hand, I would still pull you off.

This is what the LORD says: "Record this man as if childless, a man who will not prosper in his lifetime, for none of his offspring will prosper, none will sit on the throne of David or rule any more in Judah."

Since no descendant of Jeconiah could ever sit on the throne, if Jesus is a descendant of this cursed king, he is disqualified from being the Messiah.

If true, then what is Jeconiah doing in the genealogy of Jesus in Matthew's gospel? And how can Jesus qualify to be the Messiah? First of all, we have to wonder why Matthew would ever have included Jeconiah among the ancestors of Jesus if this so obviously disqualified Jesus from being the Messiah. In fact, the Scripture shows that the curse was only short-term, if not altogether reversed by God.

There are three parts to the curse on Jeconiah (who is also called Jehoiachin or Coniah):

  • that he would be childless (this is how the Hebrew text literally reads)
  • that he would not prosper in his lifetime
  • that none of his descendants would rule in Judah

The Scripture shows that in fact none of these took place.

  • Though the Hebrew literally reads, "Record this man childless," Jeconiah in fact had children.

    The descendants of Jehoiachin the captive: Shealtiel his son, Malkiram, Pedaiah, Shenazzar, Jekamiah, Hoshama and Nedabiah
    -- 1 Chronicles 3:17-18

  • He did prosper in his day.

    In the thirty-seventh year of the exile of Jehoiachin king of Judah, in the year Evil-Merodach became king of Babylon, he released Jehoiachin from prison on the twenty-seventh day of the twelfth month. He spoke kindly to him and gave him a seat of honour higher than those of the other kings who were with him in Babylon.
    -- 2 Kings 25:27-28

  • His grandson Zerubbabel prospered and ruled. In fact the same words God used in rejecting Jeconiah were deliberately used in establishing Zerubbabel.

    "As surely as I live," declares the LORD, "even if you, Jehoiachin son of Jehoiakim king of Judah, were a signet ring on my right hand, I would still pull you off.
    -- Jeremiah 22:24

    "'On that day,' declares the LORD Almighty, 'I will take you, my servant Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel,' declares the LORD, 'and I will make you like my signet ring, for I have chosen you,' declares the LORD Almighty."
    -- Haggai 2:23

Though Zerubbabel did not sit on the throne as king, the fact that Haggai 2:23 uses the same terminology as Jeremiah 22:24 shows that Haggai intended to indicate a reversal of the curse.

We have to conclude that in Jeremiah 22:30, "in his lifetime" qualifies the following phrases, and "for" explains that no descendant of his will prosper and rule during his lifetime.

We find rabbinic sources which also agree that God reversed the curse on Jeconiah, which they attribute to repentance on Jeconiah's part. We even find the idea that the Messiah will descend from Jeconiah--exactly the opposite of what some say is impossible! Some of these sources are as follows:

1. Sources stating that Jeconiah repented and so God reversed the curse.

Sanhedrin 37b-38a

R. Johanan said: Exile atones for everything, for it is written, Thus saith the Lord, write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days, for no man of his seed shall prosper sitting upon the throne of David and ruling any more in Judah. Whereas after he [the king] was exiled, it is written, And the sons of Jechoniah, -- the same is Assir -- Shealtiel his son etc.(1) [He was called] Assir, because his mother conceived him in prison. Shealtiel, because God did not plant him in the way that others are planted. We know by tradition that a woman cannot conceive in a standing position. [yet she] did conceive standing. Another interpretation: Shealtiel, because God obtained [of the Heavenly court] absolution from His oath.(2)

(1) I Ch. III, 17. Notwithstanding the curse that he should be childless and not prosper, after being exiled he was forgiven.
(2) Which He had made, to punish Jechoniah with childlessness.

--Soncino Talmud edition, with selected footnotes


Pesikta de-Rab Kahana (5th c.)

I accepted the repentance of Jeconiah: shall I not accept your repentance? A cruel decree had been imposed upon Jeconiah: Scripture says, This man Coniah is a despised, shattered image ('sb) (Jer. 22:28), for Jeconiah, according to R. Abba bar Kahana, was like a man's skull ('sm) which once shattered is utterly useless, or according to R. Helbo, like a wrapper of reed matting that dates are packed in, which, once emptied, is utterly useless. And Scripture goes on to say of Jeconiah: He is a vessel that none reaches for with delight (ibid.), a vessel, said R. Hama bar R. Hanina, such as a urinal; or a vessel, said R. Samuel bar Nahman, such as is used for drawing off blood. [These comments on Jeconiah derive from] R. Meir's statement: The Holy One swore that He would raise up no king out of Jeconiah king of Judah. Thus Scripture: As I live, saith the Lord, though Coniah the son of Jehoiakim . . . were the signet on a hand, yet by My right, I would pluck thee hence (Jer. 22:24), words by which God was saying, explained R. Hanina bar R. Isaac, "Beginning with thee, Jeconiah, I pluck out the kingship of the house of David." It is to be noted, however, that the Hebrew for "pluck thee" is not as one would expect 'tkk, but the fuller and less usual 'tknk, which may also be rendered "mend thee"--that is, mend thee by thy repentance. Thus in the very place, [the kingship], whence Jeconiah was plucked, amends would be made to him: [his line would be renewed].

R. Ze'era said: I heard the voice of R. Samuel bar Isaac expounding from the teacher's chair a specific point concerning Jeconiah, but I just cannot remember what it was. R. Aha Arika asked: Did it perhaps have some connection with this particular verse -- Thus saith the Lord: Write ye this man childless, a man [who] will not prosper in his days (Jer. 22:30)? "Yes, that's it!" said R. Ze'era. Thereupon R. Aha Arika went on to give R. Samuel bar Isaac's interpretation of the verse: In his days Jeconiah, so long as he is childless, will not prosper, but when he has a son, then he will prosper by his son's prosperity.

R Aha bar Abun bar Benjamin, citing R. Abba bar R. Papi, said: Great is the power of repentance, which led God to set aside an oath even as it led Him to set aside a decree. Whence the proof that a man's repentance led Him to set aside the oath He made in the verse As I live, saith the Lord, though Coniah the son of Jehoiakim were the signet on a hand, yet by My right, I would pluck thee hence (Jer. 22:24)? The proof is in the verse where Scripture says [of one of Jeconiah's descendants] In that day, saith the Lord of hosts, will I take thee, O Zerubbabel . . . the son of Shealtiel . . . and will make thee as a signet (Haggai 2:23). And the proof that a man's repentance led God to set aside a decree He issued in the verse Thus saith the Lord: Write ye this man childless, etc. (Jer. 22:30)? The proof is in the verse where Scripture says, The sons of Jeconiah -- the same is Asir -- Shealtiel his son, etc. (1 Chron. 3:17). R. Tanhum bar Jeremiah said: Jeconiah was called Asir, "one imprisoned," because he had been in prison ('asurim); and his sons called "Shealtiel" because he was like a sapling, newly set out (hustelah), through whom David's line would be continued.

R. Tanhuma said: Jeconiah was called Asir, "imprisoned," because God imprisoned Himself by His oath in regard to him; and Jeconiah's son was called Shealtiel, "God consulted," because God consulted the heavenly court, and they released Him from His oath.

--Yale Judaica edition translated by William G. Braude and Israel J. Kapstein (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1975), pp. 376-77. Bracketed portions are Braude and Kapstein's explanations.


Leviticus Rabbah XIX:6 (5th-6th c.)

The Holy One, blessed be He, then said: 'In Jerusalem you did not observe the precept relating to issues, but now you are fulfilling it,' as it is said, As for thee also, because of the blood of thy covenant I send forth thy prisoners out of the pit (Zech. IX, 11) [which means], You have remembered the blood at Sinai, and for this do 'I send forth thy prisoners'. R. Shabbethai said: He [Jeconiah] did not move thence before the Holy One, blessed be He, pardoned him all his sins. Referring to this occasion Scripture has said: Thou art all fair, my love, and there is no blemish in thee (S.S. IV, 7). A Heavenly Voice went forth and said to them: 'Return, ye backsliding children, I will heal your backslidings' (Jer. III, 22).

--Soncino Midrash Rabbah vol. 4, p. 249


Pesikta Rabbati, Piska 47 (6th-7th c.)

R. Joshua ben Levi, however, argued as follows: Repentance sets aside the entire decree, and prayer half the decree. You find that it was so with Jeconiah, king of Judah. For the Holy One, blessed be He, swore in His anger, As I live, saith the Lord, though Coniah the son of Jehoiakim kind of Judah were the signet on a hand, yet by My right -- note, as R. Meir said, that it was by His right hand that God swore -- I would pluck thee hence (Jer. 22:24). And what was decreed against Jeconiah? That he die childless. As is said Write ye this man childless (Jer. 22:30). But as soon as he avowed penitence, the Holy One, blessed be He, set aside the decree, as is shown by Scripture's reference to The sons of Jeconiah -- the same is Assir -- Shealtiel his son, etc. (1 Chron. 3:17). And Scripture says further: In that day . . . will I take thee, O Zerubbabel . . . the son of Shealtiel . . . and will make thee as a signet (Haggai 2:23). Behold, then how penitence can set aside the entire decree!

--Yale Judaica edition translated by William G. Braude (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1968), vol. 2, p. 797.


Numbers Rabbah XX:20 (date uncertain; 9th c.?)

...no sooner had they repented, than the danger was averted, And the Lord repented of the evil (ib. XXXII, 14). And so in many places. For example, He said about Jekoniah: For no man of his seed shall prosper (Jer. XXII, 30) and it says, I will overthrow the throne of kingdoms, and I will destroy the strength of the kingdoms of the nations . . . In that day, saith the Lord of hosts, will I take thee, O Zerubbabel, My servant, the son of Shealtiel, saith the Lord, and will make thee as a signet (Hag. II, 22 f.). Thus was annulled that which He had said to his forefather, viz. As I live, saith the Lord, though Coniah the son of Jehoiakim King of Judah were the signet upon My right hand, yet I would pluck thee thence (Jer. XXII, 24).

--Soncino Midrash Rabbah vol 6, pp. 812-13


Rabbi A. J. Rosenberg, on Jeremiah 22:30 (20th c.)

In this, too, no man of his seed shall prosper, namely that no one will occupy the throne of David nor rule in Judah. Although we find that Zerubbabel, his great grandson, did rule over Judah upon the return of the exiles, the Rabbis (Pesikta d'Rav Kahana p. 163a) state that this was because Jehoiachin repented while in prison. They state further: Repentance is great, for it nullifies a person's sentence, as it is stated: 'Inscribe this man childless.' But since he repented, his sentence was revoked and turned to the good, and he said to him, "I will take you, Zerubbabel, and I will make you a signet" (Haggai 2:23). They state further: Said Rabbi Johanan: Exile expiates all sins, as it is said: "Inscribe this man childless," and after he was exiled, it is written: '(1 Chron. 3:17) And the sons of Jeconiah, Assir, Shealtiel his son'--[Redak].

--A. J. Rosenberg, Jeremiah: A New English Translation (New York: Judaica Press, 1985), vol. 1 p. 185. "Redak" is an acronym for Rabbi David Kimchi (13th c.), whose opinion Rosenberg cites.


Encyclopedia Judaica

Even the decree that none of his descendants would ascend the throne (Jer. 22:30) was repealed when Zerubbabel was appointed leader of the returned exiles (cf. Sanh. 37b-38a).

--"Jehoiachin" (9:1319).


2. Sources stating that the Messiah will descend from Jeconiah.

Tanhuma Genesis, Toledot (8th-9th c.)

Scripture alludes here to the verse Who art thou, O great mountain before Zerubbabel? Thou shalt become a plain (Zech. 4:7). This verse refers to the Messiah, the descendant of David. . . .From whom will the Messiah descend? From Zerubbabel.

--Midrash Tanhuma-Yelammedenu, translated by Samuel A. Berman (Hoboken, NJ: Ktav, 1996), p. 182.


Rabbi A. J. Rosenberg on Jeremiah 22:24 (20th c.)

Malbim calls to our attention that in the prophecy of Haggai (2:23), God says, "On that day I will take you, Zerubbabel, and I will make you like a signet," for the King Messiah will be like a signet ring on God's right hand, so to speak. Just as the name of the owner of the ring is engraved on his signet ring, through which he makes himself known, so will God's name be known in the world through the King Messiah, through whom His miracles will be known. He says here that, though, in the future, Coniah will be the signet on My right hand, for the Messiah will spring from his seed, now I will remove him from there.

--Ibid., p. 183. Malbim is an acronym for Meir Loeb ben Jehiel Michale, a 19th c. rabbi and commentator. 22:24.


Jewish Encyclopedia

Jehoiachin's sad experiences changed his nature entirely, and as he repented of the sins which he had committed as king he was pardoned by God, who revoked the decree to the effect that none of his descendants should ever become king (Jer. xxii.30; Pesik., ed. Buber, xxv. 163a, b): he even became the ancestor of the Messiah (Tan., Toledot, 20 [ed. Buber, i. 140]).

--Louis Ginzberg, "Jehoiachin," vol. 7 p. 84.

The above article is one solution to the problem of the curse on Jeconiah. For an alternate solution, see "The Genealogy of the Messiah" by Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum

http://www.jewsforjesus.org/publications/issues/5_6/genealogy

The Genealogy of the Messiah by Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum

November 1, 1987

This is an archived article. It originally appeared on November 1, 1987. Some information may be outdated.

In 1982, Reader's Digest decided to make the Bible easier to read. Translators, paraphrasers and a variety of religious entrepreneurs have been providing more and more modern versions of the Bible to keep pace with our rapidly deteriorating use of the English language. Reader's Digest went one step further, condensing the Bible—excising what they considered "extraneous"—providing an abridged version called The Reader's Digest Bible.

Among the passages deemed "unnecessary" were the many genealogies. Yet, the frequency with which genealogies appear in the Scriptures is evidence of their importance. Genealogies established one's Jewishness, one's tribal identity, one's right to the priesthood and one's right to kingship.

From all the genealogies in the Hebrew Scriptures, two observations become apparent. With very rare exceptions, only the male line is traced and only men's names appear. The descendancy of women is not given and their names are only mentioned in passing. Since biblically it was the father who determined both national and tribal identity, it was reasoned that only his line was necessary.

In addition, only one line is traced from the beginning to the end of the biblical history, the line of King David. The Scriptures reveal every name before David (Adam to David) and every name after David (David to Zerubbabel). Since the Messiah was to be of the house of David, this can also be labeled as the messianic line. In fact, the genealogies limit more and more the human origin of the Messiah. As the Seed of the woman, Messiah had to come out of humanity. As the Seed of Abraham, Messiah had to come from the nation of Israel. As the Seed of Judah, he had to be of the tribe of Judah. As the Seed of David, he had to be of the family of David.

The Jewish Scriptures as Background to the New Covenant

The pattern of genealogy in the Hebrew Scriptures is followed by the New Testament pattern where two genealogies are found: Matthew 1:1-17 and Luke 3:23-38. Of the four gospel accounts, only those two deal with the birth and early life of Jesus. Both Mark and John begin their accounts with Jesus as an adult, so it is natural that only Matthew and Luke would have a genealogy. While they both provide an account of the birth and early life of Jesus, each tells the story from a different perspective.

In Matthew, Joseph plays an active role, but Miriam (Mary) plays a passive role. Matthew records angels appearing to Joseph, but there is no record of angels appearing to Miriam. Matthew records Joseph's thoughts but nothing is recorded about Miriam's thoughts. On the other hand, Luke's Gospel tells the same story from Miriam's perspective. From the context of each Gospel, it should be very evident that the genealogy of Matthew is that of Joseph, and the genealogy of Luke is that of Miriam.

The question then raised is: Why do we need two genealogies, especially since Y'shua (Jesus) was not the real son of Joseph? A popular and common answer is: Matthew's Gospel gives the royal line, whereas Luke's Gospel gives the real line. From this concept, another theory arises. Since seemingly Joseph was the heir apparent to David's throne, and Jesus was the adopted son of Joseph, Jesus could claim the right to David's throne. On the other hand, Luke's Gospel gives the real line, showing that Y'shua himself was a descendant of David. Through Miriam, he was a member of the house of David, but he could claim the right to sit on David's throne through Joseph, the heir apparent. Actually the exact opposite is true.

Kingship

To understand the need for these two genealogies, it is important to understand the two requirements for kingship in the Hebrew Scriptures. These were developed after the division of the kingdom after the death of Solomon.…

One was applicable to the southern Kingdom of Judah, with its capital in Jerusalem, while the other was applicable to the northern Kingdom of Israel, with its capital in Samaria. The requirement for the throne of Judah was Davidic descendancy. No one was allowed to sit on David's throne unless he was a member of the house of David. So when there was a conspiracy to do away with the house of David (Isaiah 7:5-6), God warned that any such conspiracy was doomed to failure (Isaiah 8:9-15).

The requirement for the throne of Israel was prophetic sanction or divine appointment. Anyone who attempted to rule on Samaria's throne without prophetic sanction was assassinated (1 Kings 11:26-39; 15:28-30; 16:1-4, 11-15; 21:21-29; 11 Kings 9:6-10; 10:29-31; 14 8-12).

With the background of these two biblical requirements for kingship and what is stated in the two New Testament genealogies, the question of Jesus' right to the throne of David can be resolved.

Matthew's Genealogy

In his genealogy, Matthew breaks with Jewish tradition and custom. He mentions the names of four women: Tamar, Rahab, Ruth and Bathsheba (who is the one to whom the pronoun "her" in verse six refers). It was contrary to Jewish practice to name women in a genealogy. The Talmud states, "A mother's family is not to be called a family." Even the few women Luke does mention were not the most prominent women in the genealogy of Y'shua. He could have mentioned Sarah, but did not. However, Matthew has a reason for naming these four and no others.

First, they were all Gentiles. This is obvious with Tamar, Rahab and Ruth. It was probably true of Bathsheba, since her first husband, Uriah, was a Hittite. Here Matthew hints at something he makes clear later: that while the main purpose of the coming of Jesus was to save the lost sheep of the house of Israel, the Gentiles would also benefit from his coming. Second, three of these women were guilty of sexual sins. Bathsheba was guilty of adultery, Rahab was guilty of prostitution and Tamar was guilty of incest. Again, Matthew only hints at a point he later clarifies: that the purpose of the Messiah's coming was to save sinners. While this fits into the format of Old Testament genealogy, it is not Matthew's main point.

Matthew's genealogy also breaks with tradition in that he skips names. He traces the line of Joseph, the step-father of Jesus, by going back into history and working toward his own time. He starts tracing the line with Abraham (verse 2) and continues to David (verse 6). Out of David's many sons, Solomon is chosen (verse 6), and the line is then traced to King Jeconiah (verse 11), one of the last kings before the Babylonian captivity. From Jeconiah (verse 12), the line is traced to Joseph (verse 16). Joseph was a direct descendant of David through Solomon, but also through Jeconiah. The "Jeconiah link" is significant in Matthew's genealogy because of the special curse pronounced on Jeconiah in Jeremiah 22:24-30:

As I live," declares the LORD,
"even though Jeconiah the son of Jehoiakim
king of Judah were a signet ring on my right
hand, yet I would pull you off…
"Is this man Jeconiah a despised, shattered jar?
Or is he an undesirable vessel?
Why have he and his descendants been hurled out
and cast into a land that they had not known?
"O land, land, land, Hear the word of the LORD!!
"Thus says the LORD, 'Write this man [Jeconiah] down childless,
A man who will not prosper in his days;
For no man of his descendants will prosper
Sitting on the throne of David, Or ruling again in Judah.'

No descendant of Jeconiah would have the right to the throne of David. Until Jeremiah, the first requirement for messianic lineage was to be of the house of David. With Jeremiah, it was limited still further. Now one had to be not only of the house of David, but apart from Jeconiah.

According to Matthew's genealogy, Joseph had the blood of Jeconiah in his veins. He was not qualified to sit on David's throne. He was not the heir apparent. This would also mean that no real son of Joseph would have the right to claim the throne of David. Therefore if Jesus were the real son of Joseph, he would have been disqualified from sitting on David's throne. Neither could he claim the right to David's throne by virtue of his adoption by Joseph, since Joseph was not the heir apparent.

The purpose of Matthew's genealogy, then, is to show why Y'shua could not be king if he were really Joseph's son. The purpose was not to show the royal line. For this reason, Matthew starts his Gospel with the genealogy, presents the Jeconiah problem, and then proceeds with the account of the virgin birth which, from Matthew's viewpoint, is the solution to the Jeconiah problem. In summary, Matthew deduces that if Jesus were really Joseph's son, he could not claim to sit on David's throne because of the Jeconiah curse; but Jesus was not Joseph's son, for he was born of the virgin Miriam (Matthew 1:18-25).

Luke's Genealogy

Unlike Matthew, Luke follows strict Jewish procedure and custom in that he omits no names and mentions no women. However, if by Jewish custom one could not mention the name of a woman, but wished to trace her line, how would one do so? He would use the name of her husband. (Possible Old Testament precedents for this practice are Ezra 2:61 and Nehemiah 7:63.) That would raise a second question: If someone studied a genealogy, how would he know whether the genealogy were that of the husband or that of the wife, since in either case the husband's name would be used? The answer is not difficult; the problem lies with the English language.

In English it is not good grammar to use a definite article ("the") before a proper name ("the" Matthew, "the" Luke, "the" Miriam): however, it is quite permissible in Greek grammar. In the Greek text of Luke's genealogy, every single name mentioned has the Greek definite article "the" with one exception: the name of Joseph (Luke 3:23). Someone reading the original would understand by the missing definite article from Joseph's name that this was not really Joseph's genealogy, but his wife Miriam's.

Furthermore, although many translations of Luke 3:23 read: "…being supposedly the son of Joseph, the son of Eli…," because of the missing Greek definite article before the name of Joseph, that same verse could be translated as follows: "Being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph the son of Heli…".1 In other words, the final parenthesis could be expanded so that the verse reads that although Y'shua was "supposed" or assumed to be the descendant of Joseph, he was really the descendant of Heli. Heli was the father of Miriam. The absence of Miriam's name is quite in keeping with the Jewish practices on genealogies. The Jerusalem Talmud recognized this genealogy to be that of Miriam and not Joseph and refers to Miriam as the daughter of Heli (Hagigah 2:4).

Also in contrast to Matthew, Luke begins his genealogy with his own time and goes back into history all the way to Adam. It comes to the family of David in versees 31-32. However, the son of David involved in this genealogy is not Solomon but Nathan. So, like Joseph, Miriam was a member of the house of David. But unlike Joseph, she came from David's son, Nathan, not Solomon. Miriam was a member of the house of David apart from Jeconiah. Since Jesus was Miriam's son, he too was a member of the house of David, apart from Jeconiah.

In this way Jesus fulfilled the biblical requirement for kingship. Since Luke's genealogy did not include Jeconiah's line, he began his Gospel with the virgin birth, and only later, in describing Y'shua's public ministry, recorded his genealogy.

However, Jesus was not the only member of the house of David apart from Jeconiah. There were a number of other descendants who could claim equality with Y'shua to the throne of David, for they too did not have Jeconiah's blood in their veins. Why Jesus and not one of the others? At this point the second biblical requirement for kingship, that of divine appointment, comes into the picture. Of all the members of the house of David apart from Jeconiah, only one received divine appointment. Luke 1:30-33 states:

And the angel said to her, 'Do not be afraid, Miriam; for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb, and bear a son, and you shall name Him Y'shua. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High: and the Lord God will give him the throne of his father David; and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever; and His kingdom will have no end.'

On what grounds then could Jesus claim the throne of David? He was a member of the house of David apart from Jeconiah. He alone received divine appointment to that throne: "The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David."

While Matthew's genealogy showed why Y'shua could not be king if he really were Joseph's son, Luke's genealogy shows why Y'shua could be king. When he returns, he will be king.

Two things may be noted by way of conclusion. First, many rabbinic objections to the messiahship of Jesus are based on his genealogy. The argument goes, "Since Jesus was not a descendant of David through his father, he cannot be Messiah and King." But the Messiah was supposed to be different. As early as Genesis 3:15, it was proposed that the Messiah would be reckoned after the "seed of the woman," although this went contrary to the biblical norm. The necessity for this exception to the rule became apparent when Isaiah 7:14 prophesied that the Messiah would be born of a virgin: "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call his name Immanuel." Whereas all others receive their humanity from both father and mother, the Messiah would receive his humanity entirely from his mother. Whereas Jewish nationality and tribal identity were normally determined by the father, with the Messiah it would be different. Since he was to have no human father, his nationality and his tribal identity would come entirely from his mother. True, this is contrary to the norm, but so is a virgin birth. With the Messiah, things would be different.

In addition, these genealogies present a fourfold portrait of the messianic person through four titles. In Matthew 1:1 he is called the Son of David and the Son of Abraham. In Luke 3:38 he is called the Son of Adam and the Son of God. As the Son of David, it means that Jesus is king. As the Son of Abraham, it means that Jesus is a Jew. As the Son of Adam, it means that Jesus is a man. As the Son of God, it means that Jesus is God. This fourfold portrait of the messianic person as presented by the genealogies is that of the Jewish God-Man King. Could the Messiah be anyone less?


Endnote 1A.T. Robertson, A Harmony of the Gospels.